Standing Committee G

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 2 - Gating orders

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert— 
 '(3) A council may make such an order to restrict the public right of way where specific evidence exists that— 
(a) illegal business activities have been conducted; or 
(b) incidents of recorded crime have taken place; and'.—[Miss McIntosh] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 31, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.
No. 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, after 'locality', insert 
', with particular regard to persons with a disability that limits their mobility.'. 
No. 33, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out 
'a reasonably convenient alternative route' 
and insert 
'a route which provides a reasonably convenient alternative route to the public at the times when the gating order will be in force.'. 
No. 46, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert— 
'(d) the likely effect of making the order on statutory undertakers whose apparatus is located in on over or adjacent to the highway.'. 
No. 34, in clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert— 
'( ) any highway, any part of which crosses or abuts agricultural land;'. 
No. 35, in clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert 
'; or where the highway is the only or principal means of access to any premises or land used for business.'. 
No. 47, in clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert 
'or the exercise of any right by a statutory undertaker'. 
No. 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 11, at end insert 
', provided that any such order shall require that the barrier be maintained in an open position during any such times as the restriction is not in force.'. 
No. 37, in clause 2, page 3, line 13, at end insert 
', provided that the installation of such a barrier does not restrict access to the highway during such times as the restriction is not in force to the extent that any previous legitimate use of the highway is prevented.'. 
No. 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(7A) A council installing, operating or maintaining any barrier authorised under subsection 6 shall ensure at all times access through the barrier for statutory undertakers.'. 
No. 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, at end insert 
'and statutory undertakers whose apparatus is located in on over or adjacent to the highway.'. 
No. 39, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert 
'; or no longer complies in relation to it'. 
No. 40, in clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 7 and 8. 
No. 41, in clause 2, page 4, line 26, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'. 
No. 42, in clause 2, page 4, line 30, at end insert— 
'(d) the posting and maintenance at entry points to any highway subject to a gating order of a notice stating the nature of the restriction of the right of way and the times when the restriction is in force.'. 
No. 43, in clause 2, page 4, line 33, at end insert 
'; excepting those persons who would be identified for the purposes of sections 129F(4) and 129F(6)(b) below.'. 
No. 10, in clause 2, page 4, line 39, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'. 
No. 11, in clause 2, page 4, line 44, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'. 
No. 12, in clause 2, page 5, line 2, at end insert 
'; and they are satisfied that no variation under subsection (2) above would be expedient in all the circumstances for the purpose of reducing crime or anti-social behaviour.'. 
No. 50, in clause 2, page 5, line 32, at end insert, 
'''statutory undertaker'' means— 
 (1) the person by whom a relevant statutory right is exercisable (in the capacity in which it is exercisable by him); or 
(b) a person having permission under section 109 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22) to execute road works, as the case may be references to an undertaker having apparatus in on over or adjacent to the highway, or to the undertaker to whom apparatus belongs, shall be construed accordingly.''.'. 
No. 13, in clause 2, page 5, line 19, at end insert— 
'(d) the periodic reviewing of gating orders with respect to their continuing expediency in all the circumstances for the purpose of reducing crime or anti-social behaviour; and with respect to the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) above.'. 
No. 44, in clause 2, page 5, line 19, at end add— 
'(d) the reviewing of gating orders following requests from a person who would be identified for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6)(b) above.'.

Alun Michael: I made the point this morning that the Bill does what it can, but that it cannot solve all the problems of the universe, land ownership and a variety of other things, and that it is not a magic wand or a panacea. We want access to be limited when it causes problems of disorder and difficulty for local people, but not when such limits are not needed. Of course, that needs to be applied in the context of good co-operation, with the exchange of information between a variety of organisations, including the police and local authorities. Our discussions have made it clear that the instrument deals with some significant problems, but that how it is used and how local intelligence is developed are important.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 31 are both significant, as they probe the need for alley-gating. It is a lot simpler in practice than in theory. I can say that with a little authority, having dealt with some 20 applications under the requirements of the Countryside and Rights  of Way Act 2000, which requires local authorities to make proposals to designate an area and to provide evidence that they need to do so. 
When such evidence has been given, it has been fairly clear that people have gone to the trouble of talking to local residents, the police and crime reduction units, and have co-operated with the local authority, because a consensus view, based on experience, has been clearly enunciated in the proposal. I believe that the same will happen under the present requirements. The points made in debate about the need for consultation, for emergency services and others to be able to gain access whenever needed, and, generally, for community support were all well made. 
Most points raised by the amendments could be dealt with more appropriately in regulations. Indeed, on one or two matters, when hon. Members referred to particular arrangements, they made exactly that point and were looking for an assurance that regulations would deal with such issues. Some of those are already covered in the legislation. 
I underline the fact that alleys that are closed under the Bill's provisions remain a highway. As a result, a variety of provisions relating to a variety of organisations—I shall return to the point in a moment—will still apply as if the alley-gating had not taken place. There will be no need to recreate arrangements that are already firmly in place in the law, but I accept that that needs to be made absolutely clear to authorities when they are taking decisions on alley-gating and to the public, who should not be worried if they are given the appropriate reassurance. 
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about the possibility of vehicles being on an area that has been alley-gated. I confess that I am not totally sure of the circumstances she has in mind, but I would be happy if, outside the Committee, she gave specific examples of what concerns her. We could work them through as illustrations and I could respond in writing. 
The essential point is that a gated alley remains a public highway. Local authorities will have a duty to remove obstructions, and any vehicles on it must be legal, just as they must be on the highway. Concerns of the sort raised by the hon. Lady are already dealt with adequately in legislation, but we are happy to respond to questions on best practice and making things clear. I reassure the Committee that the basic point is absolutely clear.

Siobhain McDonagh: What will happen if the alleyway in question is owned by a private landowner who cannot be found or traced, yet the alleyway needs to be gated? In my constituency, Mitcham and Morden, where alley-gating has been terrifically successful, often everyone along the terrace of properties agrees, apart from one householder, but that one objector prevents the gating from happening. How will the measure be implemented?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right that we are trying to avoid that. If there is relevant evidence, common sense can be applied so that the gating is not  obstructed unreasonably. The purpose of the measure is to ensure that obstructions—for example, whether ownership is known or there is doubt about it—do not stand in the way of dealing with the issues.
Where there is an unadopted alleyway, our advice is that the local authority should adopt a common-sense approach. If agreement can be reached between all the parties that the local authority can identify, the authority should gate an alleyway. Local authorities are asking us to remove the legal impediment to gating public highways; they believe that the impediment lies there. If an unadopted alleyway has been used as a through route for 20 years or more, it almost certainly qualifies as a public highway and will be covered by the clause. 
So, I accept that, in some situations, legal advisers to local authorities may need to consider the case, but we believe that, following the changes that we are providing, the legislation will enable authorities to deal with the situation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has a specific example in mind, I am happy to use it as a test case with our officials. I know that our officials look forward to the intellectual stimulus of engaging with specific examples. 
One general point was made, which does not apply to any of the amendments specifically. It is the question whether the three elements in proposed new section 129A(3) must be satisfied. The answer is yes. We are talking about 
''premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway''—

David Taylor: Order. The Minister is relating information that does not relate to the amendment. It may be appropriate on clause stand part.

Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Taylor. I wanted to answer a query, but I will simply state the factual information that all three elements must be satisfied. If necessary, I will expand on that point in due course.

Sue Doughty: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Alun Michael: I do not think I can, because the Chairman has just told me that this is business for clause stand part.

David Taylor: If the point that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) wants to raise relates to the amendment we are discussing or to one of those in the group linked to it, I will consider it relevant.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister and you, Mr. Taylor, for your indulgence. The question that our probing amendment asks is that if proposed new section 129A(3)(a), which concerns
''premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway are affected by crime or anti-social behaviour'', 
stays in as a point that must be satisfied, what will happen when the premises adjoining the highway are not used for antisocial behaviour, but someone gets mugged in the alley?

Alun Michael: The provision is intended to deal with situations where the alleyway causes, encourages or fails to give impediment to criminal and antisocial activity that affect the people adjacent to the highway. It is difficult to think of somewhere being used in the way the hon. Lady suggests without that having implications for the neighbours. If straightforward criminal activity is taking place, closing the alleyway does not seem to be the right response.

Sue Doughty: I was thinking of where I was brought up, where there was a snicket that went through the middle of a circular road that was accessed from the front. It was badly lit. Somebody could be attacked there, but it would have no bearing on the neighbours on either side because the person would have been using the snicket to cut from one area to another. That is the example I have in mind—a path used as a shortcut to somewhere else that does not have any bearing on the adjacent areas.

Alun Michael: No, but is difficult to see why the provision should be used to deal with that situation. The hon. Lady sees the provision as some sort of magic wand that can deal with all circumstances, but it is clear that we do not want to lose access unless that is necessary. For instance, if there is a badly-lit area, matters that ought to be dealt with before consideration is given to closing it down include the lighting of the area and the question whether there should be a police or intelligence approach if an individual or a group is using a snicket or alleyway for nefarious activities. That is clear in the hierarchy of approaches that one ought to take.
The closure of an alleyway may have a wider implication for those immediately adjoining it and the provision is intended to address the disruption of the quality of life for the people on either side or immediately adjoining it. Indeed, that issue has been brought up time and again by colleagues throughout the Government. 
I shall return to the other amendments in a moment, but the essential point to make about the first two is that one would make it even easier to close alleyways, which goes too far in one direction, and the other would constrain the requirements, meaning that one would have to produce evidence of business activity and specific criminal activity rather than of the generality of crime and disorder. Between them, the amendments demonstrate convincingly that we have the balance right, which is why I am not willing to accept either of them. 
Amendments Nos. 32, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 are undesirable because regulations can take account of the needs of statutory undertakers, disability groups and others, which are covered by the draft amendments. I am happy to assure Members that the regulations will require councils to take account of the needs of disabled people, such as access issues. 
Proposed new section 129C will require regulations for notification of persons likely to be affected, so that they may make representations. I can give an undertaking that regulations will include the requirement to consult on issues relating to mobility,  but specific requirements for consultation are best dealt with by regulations. That allows the flexibility for us to learn as time goes on. There will be public consultation—a wider opportunity to comment on the content of these regulations. Local authorities are, in any event, bound by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on matters concerning the public right to use a public highway. 
Proposed new section 129A(3)(c) already says that the council must be satisfied that 
''it is in all circumstances expedient to make the order''. 
It must include the effect on statutory undertakers and utility companies, such as the electric company, in its considerations. We believe that the requirements in respect of statutory undertakings, disability, utilities and emergency services can be thoroughly dealt with where they are not already dealt with in legislation, as I mentioned earlier, where their rights are already protected. Any gated alleyway will still be a highway. Therefore, there is a protection for those. 
Amendments Nos. 2, 12, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 are undesirable because they are already covered by the clause and would severely limit local authorities' flexibility in gating nuisance alleyways. Many problems in alleyways come from antisocial behaviour and do not fall within the descriptions ''illegal business activities'' or ''recorded crime''. Gating schemes greatly reduce these problems. It is important for councils to be able to ''gate'' an alleyway, snicket or gully where there is clear evidence that open access contributes to antisocial behaviour and criminal activity, whether it involves recordable offences or criminal activity that comes under the heading non-recordable, notifiable or—the final catch-all—''any other offence''. 
We have made progress as a result of recent legislation through new section 118B of the Highways Act 1980, which was introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The amendment would nullify the effect of that measure, so we would be unable to put into practice the lessons that we have learned over the past couple of years. 
On the question of a physical barrier, there is already a requirement for local authorities to consider whether there is a reasonably convenient alternative route for the public, regardless of what times of day the order says that the alleyway concerned may be gated. The amendment would allow certain alleyways to be gated even if antisocial behaviour or criminal offences are not present. That is clearly undesirable, as the appropriate checks and balances need to be in place, which is what we sought to achieve with the clauses. Such an amendment could result in many requests for gating orders and, if large numbers of areas were gated where there is no need for that to happen,, it could severely inhibit the law-abiding majority going about their daily business. 
A reference was made to abutting agricultural land. Section 129A of the Highways Act 1980 says that before making a gating order, the council must be satisfied that
''the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences or anti-social behaviour''. 
Where a highway crosses or abuts agricultural land there will often be other means of access to the premises. The erection of a gate would not achieve the preventive result, since perpetrators would not be prevented from entering the highway. However, there may conceivably be cases where a highway abuts agricultural land, but there is a real and reasonable need to gate it because it is the only means of rear or side access to the property. This amendment would deny a gating order in those circumstances. 
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 44 are undesirable because they would remove flexibility at a local level. They would severely restrict the council's discretion over when to hold a public inquiry, vary or remove the restrictions imposed by the order and notify local residents. The local authority is best placed to decide when those actions should take place. Revoking restrictions prematurely could lead to a resurgence of the crime and antisocial behaviour that the order was made to combat. We would regard it as good practice to remove the restriction once the conditions that led to it have ended or been removed. To require reviews or make them compulsory would be too restrictive and bureaucratic. It would be costly to councils to have to reinstate restrictions that were lifted prematurely. 
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are undesirable because they would enable someone to appeal against the validity of an order on the grounds that the requirements under new part 8A of the 1980 Act are no longer met, although at the time of its introduction the order did comply with such requirements. They would therefore place a further obligation on the High Court to consider the validity of gating orders at a time in the future when the requirements under part 8A no longer apply in relation to the gating order. 
The clauses already allow a local authority to vary or revoke the gating order if the restrictions imposed on the highway are no longer needed, so it is not necessary for the High Court to become involved. It would be most peculiar to remove the decision from an elected council to the courts. It is important to remember that we are not removing the involvement of the High Court within six weeks of the creation of the gating order, should a person wish to question the validity of its creation. 
We are resisting amendment No. 40 because it is linked to amendment No. 39, which we also resist, and because it would make a consequential amendment removing the six-week restriction on applications put forward to the High Court. That consequential amendment would allow a person to apply to the High Court to question the validity of the gating order at any time after the order is made, rather than restrict it to six weeks. That arrangement goes against the principle of legal certainty and legal policy that allows a definite period for challenge. 
I have some sympathy with amendment No. 13, because there is a possibility that closures might be maintained in some cases long after the need for them has disappeared. Indeed, that is why we have designed clause 2 to allow rights of way to be re-established if  conditions change. That is quite different from the existing alley gating provisions in section 118B of the 1980 Act, where the fundamental problem is that once the order is made, the right of way is permanently extinguished. It may not prove possible to re-establish it, even where the problems that originally led to its closure have been eliminated. 
The same result that the amendment seeks to achieve could, however, be achieved through guidance, and I am certainly prepared to look at that approach. I share the intentions of those who tabled the amendment, but I suggest that we should adopt a best practice approach rather than include in primary legislation a requirement that might prove inflexible and bureaucratic. Let us, to a degree, leave the matter to the council for judgment, but let us offer guidance that there should be a periodic review unless it is absolutely clear that the conditions that led to the establishment of an order continue. 
The clause enables alleyways to be reopened where there is no longer a need to gate them for the purposes of reducing crime or antisocial behaviour. The addition of a requirement periodically to review the need for the order will put pressure on councils to reopen highways promptly when there is a case for doing so, and discourage them from closing highways and then simply forgetting about them. 
I hope that I have shown that in many cases we share the concerns that have been expressed or at least the intentions behind the amendments, but that the primary legislation that already exists protects the situation adequately in terms of the utilities and the emergency services. The regulations that will be made will deal with the other issues that need to be addressed—a fair point that was made in the debate. In ensuring that proper advice is given to local authorities, we will see that the existing legislation is drawn to their attention so that there is no doubt about what the Bill does and does not change in the existing law. I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York is happy not to press her amendment.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister seems to have great difficulty in seeing the logic of many of our amendments, although I am grateful to him in connection with amendment No. 2. He said that we can press him, and through him his officials, about specific instances. That is welcome. He also made great play of giving us an undertaking that most of the points that we had covered in the amendments would be included in regulations. My colleagues and I have great problems with that procedure. The whole point of amending the Bill and having stand part discussions is that that is the proper exercise of parliamentary scrutiny.

Alun Michael: My first engagement in opposition on a Standing Committee involved spending an awful lot of time talking about regulations. I got no hint from the Government of the time about anything that would be in the regulations, whereas I have given a clear indication to the Opposition that where they have  made good points, they will be taken on board. The hon. Lady should recognise that my generosity contrasts with historical experience.

David Taylor: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister has the advantage over me because my historical experience of the House does not pre-date 1997. He went only so far as to say that he would give a hint. I hope that I can press him further on that. He also referred to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which, as he admitted, has effectively been in operation for only two years. The Government would have been extremely well advised to have allowed a bigger body of experience to build up than has been possible over that short time. A verbal confirmation or commitment rather than a hint of what is going to be in the recommendations would be most welcome.
We seek from the Minister one of several possible conclusions to the debate. The first would be for him to agree that those with statutory undertakings must be afforded access to apparatus and equipment in the highway at all times. We have already discussed the scenario involving the emergency services—the ambulance and fire services and the police. I rehearsed all the various statutory undertakings that may be included, and I want to press him further on that. The second conclusion to the debate would be for him to accept the amendments as we have drafted them, or since we do not have the advantage of the huge resources in his Department or of parliamentary counsel, for him to table amendments on Report to substantially the same effect. Will he also give a positive assurance that the regulations on the procedure for gating orders afford sufficient protection in respect of the statutory undertakings? 
We tabled the amendments because we believe that the Bill could have the albeit unintended consequence of placing utility companies in a difficult position with regard to their statutory and contractual duties, and that it could also place householders on the other side of the barrier in an even more frustrating position. In their bid to deal with antisocial behaviour or congestion problems on a public highway, the Government are potentially placing the utility companies in a more rigid regime of permits and notices in undertaking works in the streets. If the amendments are not considered in a positive light, the utilities may not be able to access their equipment on a highway or alleyway that has been gated. None the less, as we will have an opportunity to return to this matter on Report and we have had an inkling from the Minister that he is going in the right direction, I shall not seek to press the amendment.

Sue Doughty: I have listened with care to the points that the Minister made. We got the result that we wanted, because we were probing to see what would happen in the regulations. In some areas, we got a clearer view. I continue to share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Vale of York about the clarity of information, particularly for the utilities. I hope that  that will find its way into regulation or into some form of advice so that the councils and people making gating orders will be encouraged to provide keyholder information and access information. That is important, and the case was well made.
I was a little bit sorry that the Minister dismissed quite so airily my concerns about mapping areas as being gated. I prefaced my comments by saying that that was part of the bigger picture. Within the scope of this Bill, we are talking about a small aspect. Certainly, these things cost money, but there is no guarantee that the information will be passed across in a formal way, and I remain concerned about that. I accept that the matter may be better dealt with elsewhere, but I felt that it was important to air it at this stage. We welcome the fact that it appears that there will be more regulation and more information, but I am still concerned that all the criteria in new section 129A(3) have to be met in order to have a gating order. I understand that the Minister has had experience in this matter, but I wonder whether we might be excluding some eventualities. We can revisit that point at a later stage.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Taylor: We now come to the clause stand part debate. We have already had an extensive discussion on most of the clause, so I shall take a bleak view of any repetition of points that have already been made in significant detail.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I shall be very mindful of your words, Mr. Taylor.
I wanted to take up a number of issues with the Minister. One is the position of the partially sighted and, indeed, the outright blind, and other disabled people under clause 2 generally. It has been brought to our attention that, ultimately, the issue is not so much a case of antisocial behaviour orders. For example, when an alleyway—where wheelie bins might normally be placed for collection—has been closed, disabled people may have to move a substantial distance to place the wheelie bin in a different location. 
With regard to the publication of the proposed order, has the Minister received representations and can he give the Committee a commitment that the availability of these orders will be in formats such as large print, audiotape and Braille so that they are accessible to people with sight problems? The proposed order should also be sent to local talking newspapers so that people with sight problems become aware of it. In my experience and I am sure in that of the Committee and the Minister as well, it is quite often the case that those who are partially sighted can be hard of hearing too, so this is particularly important. 
I have to declare that I was at a boarding school in Harrogate in the north of England, where we were more used to crocodiles than alligators—I think I will stick to the script. However, I understand that, in the city of York, we now have alley gating. York switched to Liberal Democrat control—we do not seem to be doing terribly well, but that will change imminently. Could the Minister explain how the proposals before the Committee this afternoon will successfully curtail crime in that regard? 
We had a lengthy discussion about ownership. What has been made perfectly clear to landowners, or those who need to access the land is that under the present drafting of clause 2—and this is a general point for which it was very difficult to table an amendment—it is very unclear on whom the responsibility for the installation, maintenance and operation of the barrier or gate would lie. Could the Minister take this opportunity to clarify that? 
The Minister will have seen the forceful briefing from the Open Spaces Society, which opposes clause 2 outright. It believes that the Bill gives the councils too sweeping powers and it shares our reservations about most of the detail having been left for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Assembly for Wales. The Society raised a point about the increase in rural crime. Much of clause 2 seems to relate specifically to areas that I can point to in my constituency of Vale of York—alleyways in market towns such as Thirsk, Bedale, Easingwold, Boroughbridge, Pocklington, New Earswick and so on, all of which are villages on the outskirts of York—but it is completely silent on how it will apply in rural areas. 
There is provision in section 57 and schedule 6 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to enable local authorities in areas designated as crime hot spots to apply to close or move paths on the grounds of preventing or reducing crime. Could the Minister tell us to what extent those provisions have been put to the test and why the Government are now introducing the scheme in clause 2? 
I referred in the debate on clause 1 to the child impact statement of the all-party parliamentary group on children, which raised the possibility that children and young people would be excluded from their daily route to school or college, health services, leisure facilities or other child-related facilities because of the provision. What representations has the Minister received in that respect and what thought has he given to them? 
A potential problem is that of the local authority supplanting the role of the local police. As doubts have been expressed about communications between the police and local authorities in that respect, can the Minister put our minds at rest on the matter? 
Overall, the process for implementation of gating has previously proven bureaucratic due to the length of time it takes to obtain stopping-up orders. Does the Minister envisage a swifter process under the proposed new section 129C? How much notice needs to be given, and what is the proposed timetable? 
If the enforcement element could be circumvented through correct planning and local action plans in which the needs and wishes of communities are addressed through gating, that would be welcome. In Liverpool, which is cited as an example of good practice, many of the alleyways are well maintained and the use of gates has been welcomed. That has been achieved largely through consultation, and problems with the provision of access to the emergency services and other users have been avoided. 
In conclusion, would the Minister consider whether further consultation is required with organisations that represent disabled people, such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, to ensure that information about gating orders and the procedures leading up to them is as widely distributed as possible and is as clear as possible to those who are disabled through sight, hearing or in other ways? 
Gating orders should be decided on a case-by-case basis to assess whether they tackle the problem. The Minister will recall that, although the summary of responses to the consultation contained widespread support for gating orders, respondents felt that long-term implications could result from specifying in the Bill the types of crime that could give rise to them. Setting out the crimes in statute could lead to calls for other crimes also to be set out in statute. That could inadvertently result in local crime audits ceasing to be required because strategies would no longer be driven by local issues. The summary of responses states: 
 ''Respondents emphasised the need for the requirements on CDRPs not to be overly prescriptive and urged that priorities need to continue to be driven by local crime audits.''
I think that the Minister is on the record as saying that that is the case. 
What role would the provisions in the clause play in instructing local authorities to invest in the good design, staffing and maintenance of public spaces to tackle antisocial behaviour or to prevent the start of a downward spiral? What will the penalty be if somebody uses the public highway in contravention of a gating order, as the Minister said, when summing up the debate on the amendments, that the route remains to all extents and purposes a public highway? If highways are to be gated at specific times, who will judge the public need to use the route and how will it be judged? How will the public be kept informed of the times when a route will be open and how will the locking and unlocking of the gating be enforced? 
I am sure that the Minister will wish to expedite the administration under the clause as far as possible and will not wish the disabled group to claim that it was not properly consulted. It would be helpful to know who the ''appropriate person'' is who may make an order. Will the Minister also, at my prompting, specify the points that he intends to make under new section 129A(3)(a) in relation to gating orders?

Mark Simmonds: May I say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor? I want to ask the Minister three or four specific questions about the contents of the clause.
The first refers to new section 129A(3)(a). What criteria will the council use when determining whether a right of way is facilitating crime? Will there have to be a record of crimes and antisocial behaviour having taken place? Will those recorded crimes and antisocial behaviour have to take place over a specific period? Will simply the recorded crime be taken into account or complaints to the local council as well? Will there have to be formal complaints or will word of mouth be sufficient? 
My second question relates to new section 129A(3)(b). Will the Minister elaborate on the definition of the word ''persistent''? How many burglaries have to take place to be classed as persistent?

Sue Doughty: It is my recollection that, when amendment No. 2 was debated this morning, we had an opportunity to cover those points. We have many important issues to go through. To revisit areas that we have already debated will not take us much further.

David Taylor: Order. I am sympathetic to what the hon. Lady says. I hope that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) will be able to ask his questions concisely and pithily.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Taylor, and for the intervention from the hon. Member for Guildford. I apologise to the Committee that I was not here for much of this morning's  proceedings. I had to attend another meeting, which I could not move. I shall move on quickly from that point.
The third element of my questions relates to subsection (7) of new section 129B. That refers to the cost to the local authority of making the order, which was estimated in the regulatory impact assessment at £1,000. What does that £1,000 include? Does it include installation, operation or long-term maintenance costs? Does it simply cover the costs of the legal application and administrative costs of making the order? 
The final point that I want to make is in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, who sits on the Opposition Front Bench. I represent a rural constituency, where concerns have been expressed by landowners about access on their land—highways, bridleways and footpaths—being gated. Can the Minister explain how that will operate in practice? It is unclear from the Bill.

David Taylor: Order. Those points were covered in this morning's debate. The hon. Gentleman should bring his remarks to a close and refer to the record of this morning's proceedings when it is available.

Mark Simmonds: I will do that exactly that.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly. I dealt with most of the issues in this clause stand part debate when I responded to the earlier exchanges. Although it is nice to have the added presence in the Committee of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, I refer him to the Hansard record of our earlier discussions, when I spoke specifically about the issue of evidence. He refers to representing a rural constituency, but I assume that he is suitably embarrassed by and contrite over the reasoned amendment—I referred to it last week as the unreasoned amendment—which said that no issue dealt with in the Bill was a concern in rural areas. His contribution illustrates how ludicrous that was.

David Taylor: Order. We are dealing with clause 2 stand part.

Alun Michael: I was merely responding to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
I found it difficult to understand some points raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York. For instance, there seems to be a wish to alley-gate roundabouts in the general vicinity of York. I am sure that there is a serious point there about consultation. Of course, consultation should allow people to know about decisions that could affect them. 
The clause is important and it gives us an opportunity to streamline local authorities' ability to gate an alley and prevent local people from having their lives ruined by an arrangement in their vicinity, which, if it does not encourage crime and disorder—it is difficult for physical arrangements to do that—appears at least to harbour crime and fails to prevent the crime and disorder that spoils their lives. 
The Open Spaces Society's response is therefore disproportionate to the targeted proposals before the Committee. For instance, it opposed the closing off of some alleyways in Manchester, which would affect Manchester's designation as being able to do this in areas where there is an effect on people's lives. That is missing the point. 
I do not think that any member of the Committee or any Member of the House wants to close off alleyways or alleyways that are useful, unless their closure would relieve people from the misery of crime and disorder. That is why there is a great deal in the clause that is flexible: it allows local authorities to put in place their own requirements, or to remove them if they are not needed, and to take action on timing if a closure is needed only at night. Such arrangements emerged from our consultation, which included a great deal of discussion with local authorities. 
Regulations will deal with those details that are inappropriate for primary legislation. However, as I have already said, primary legislation contains provisions to protect the utilities and so on. I covered that point clearly, so I shall not labour it. 
The point was made that it is unclear on whom responsibility for erecting the gate and the cost will fall. The provision is permissive and when the gating order has been made, the council or another occupier of the highway can put up the gate, paid for by the local authority, or it can be done jointly by the local authority and the residents, or it can be done with a Home Office grant. The clause puts the permissive arrangements in place so that the work can be done. 
The regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and I have given an assurance on the extent to which points made during this debate will be taken into account when drafting the regulations and bringing them to the House for consideration. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Exposing vehicles for sale on a road

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 3, page 6, line 2, leave out '3' and insert '4'.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 30, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, leave out '3' and insert '4'.

Matthew Green: The purpose of the amendments is to establish how the Government envisage the penalties working for persistent offenders. Some companies persistently leave cars on the road and look on the £100 fixed penalty fines as the cost of doing business. That could be a problem.
We have approached the matter by considering the maximum penalty that a court could impose, which is a level 3 fine—a maximum of £1,000—and increasing it to £2,500. I am sure that the Committee is aware that courts rarely impose the maximum fine available to them and even for persistent offenders the fine could be much less than £1,000. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed my understanding, which is that issuing a fixed penalty notice is at the discretion of the local authority. It can choose not to issue a fixed penalty notice and, instead, go for court prosecution. 
Alun Michael indicated assent.

Matthew Green: The Minister is nodding and I am glad he has acknowledged that.
We envisage a problem in that the courts may not use the maximum fine, which is only £1,000, and that the £2,500 maximum of level 4 may give them more flexibility.

Alun Michael: May I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said? This is a matter of choice. The fixed penalty notice is intended to expedite the imposition of a punishment with minimum bureaucracy. However, I take his point that there are circumstances when that is not appropriate but it is appropriate for the prosecution approach to be pursued. It may be helpful to tell him that we are looking again at the maximum penalty and whether it is appropriate to have a higher level. I am happy to say that I will consider his point further.

Matthew Green: The Minister has all but responded to my amendment in that intervention. He sounds encouraging, so I shall sit down and let him make his formal response.

Alun Michael: I simply say that I cannot accept the amendment, but the point made by the hon. Gentleman also exercises us. We want commensurate levels for various environmental offences. I assure him that we will continue actively to consider the point.

Matthew Green: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: We have now moved on to part 2 and I want to press the Minister for further information. Clause 3 raises an interesting aspect of ownership, which may not necessarily have been the intention: who will be responsible for ensuring that proof of ownership has been certified before other clauses take effect?
 ''A person is guilty of an offence if . . . he leaves two or more motor vehicles parked on the same road where they are exposed or advertised for sale''. 
We accept the principle that we need to address nuisance parking and that vehicles for sale should not be parked on the road to advertise them, but should be more properly accommodated on a garage forecourt rather than outside a private home or on a public highway. However, does the Minister accept that clause 3(1)(a) is ambiguous? Does ''exposed'' refer to the vehicle's position on the road or does it mean exposed for the purpose of sale? Does that include a vehicle parked temporarily, but not dangerously, on a road—for example, following a test drive, with no visible sales material on it?

Matthew Green: I am intrigued to know which council the hon. Lady is thinking of that has surplus officers to stand outside places where cars are for sale and wait for someone to park on the road after a test drive.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows how this will work; in all probability, someone living in an adjoining residence will phone and make a formal complaint to the local authority. I do not think he has been in politics for such a short time that he is completely green.
It is our understanding that there can be disputed areas of access on a garage forecourt between garage operators and local authorities: the garage owns the land, but the local authority does not wish it to be used as a hard stand. That could be an issue for a city centre garage where space is at a premium. Has the Minister received representations on that and what way does he see around the problem? 
I presume that there is no way that the Minister will assure the Committee that the clause cannot be interpreted in such a way as to impact on the work of the motoring service organisations. Such an effect would be regrettable. 
Is the Minister saying that the clause is drafted to tackle incidents of nuisance parking—how will he define nuisance parking?—as well as business being conducted from inappropriate premises? What guidance will he give local authorities, presumably through regulations, to prevent malicious complaints that might be made by neighbours who could have fallen out? 
In quite a full introduction to clause 1, the Minister said that antisocial behaviour was increasing in general. What is the rate of incidents of antisocial behaviour and the number of abandoned cars? Does he accept that, based on the scenarios that his Government—

David Taylor: Order. The hon. Lady is introducing material that is covered by subsequent clauses.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister justify why he wants to introduce the provision? Has the number of incidents increased substantially? When the clause refers to vehicles for sale, what period would be considered an unreasonable amount of time to leave a car parked on a property?
I was brought to order, but I think that this is the appropriate time to mention that any vehicle parked on the highway must be taxed, insured and possess a current MOT certificate. Not having those things is surely a much more serious offence than simply being parked. What instruction will the Minister give to the local authority to check the documentation of vehicles, identify the registered and authorised owner, and notify the appropriate authority when an offence is believed to have been committed? He did not respond to those points earlier, but they are particularly pertinent in relation to clause 3. 
What will be the involvement of the police? Does the Minister accept that they have a residual responsibility under the clause? Will his Department give specific instructions in this regard to the local authorities to respond to the police? Will it be the responsibility of the police to report an offence of not having insurance, tax or MOT to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, or will he instruct the local authority to do so? 
Some motor traders try to pass themselves off as private sellers when selling vehicles, which could take place either on a garage forecourt or more probably from their own home, in which case nuisance vehicles will be parked on the street. Does the clause exempt private sellers from that? Will there be a specific reference in the regulations to the removal list? 
While we accept that the provisions will remove the blight on street parking caused by garages and small businesses located in residential areas, that will put an onus on the local authority. It could make a positive contribution by picking up on the other offences to which I referred. 
It is clear that the clause will place the burden on car owners to prove that any transactions are private sales rather than commercial trade. Does the Minister accept that that is turning English law on its head? It will be for the authority to prove that such a sale is acting for a business's purpose of selling motor vehicles. Is he saying that the new offence set out in clause 3 assumes guilt, rather than the present assumption of innocent until proven guilty? 
Widening the definition of a nuisance vehicle may result in a large increase in the number of vehicles that councils need to remove and store. Local authorities will be taking on work that is currently undertaken by the police and the DVLA. They may also be saving emergency services the cost of dealing with arson and injury associated with nuisance vehicles. What resources will be provided to local authorities to take up those new responsibilities? Are the powers discretionary or will a penalty be imposed on the local authority for failing to implement them? I ask that  because the Secretary of State created some confusion when she said on Second Reading that all the powers in the Bill are discretionary. 
Will the Minister confirm that great care will be taken to ensure that any legislation targets only commercial operators, while allowing mobile mechanics and private individuals to undertake repairs and the emergency services to do their job?

David Taylor: Order. The hon. Lady is moving on to issues covered by clause 4.

Anne McIntosh: I have one final question. What will be the costs to the local authority of the additional responsibility placed on them by this provision and clause 3 in particular?

Alun Michael: The provision is discretionary. It does not place additional burdens on the local authority. Local authorities often have complaints about vehicles parked on the street in the course of running a business, and they are difficult to deal with. Sometimes, the police get complaints as well. The provision will enable the authority to deal sensibly and swiftly with a problem that arises from time to time in several areas. Many constituency MPs will have experienced that problem and the difficulty of making it go away. Far from placing a burden on local authorities, the provision will enable them to get on with their work effectively.
The clause has nothing to do with abandoned vehicles. It is about vehicles on the road for sale. Cars sold on the road by commercial businesses can cause problems and considerable annoyance for ordinary people. They also create a significant blight on an area. The clause makes it an offence to expose or advertise two or more vehicles for sale on the same road. The hon. Lady questioned the use of ''expose''. The wording of the clause means exposed for sale or advertised for sale. 
Our target is not the individual private seller, so a person would not be convicted if they could show that they were not running or acting as part of a business. ''Road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all roads to which the public have access, and will include, for example, private roads running through estates—very much the place where problems can arise. For the avoidance of doubt, the definition of motor vehicle includes caravans and trailers. 
The clause will prevent the spillover of a business that goes beyond just one car parked on the road when moving things around or one or two vehicles causing a problem, and will allow a problem in the area to be dealt with. It is a matter of local judgment as to how the new power should be used. I offer the advice that, as is often the case, if there is not a problem, do not deal with it, but if there is, here are the means to help deal with it. Issues such as tax and information on vehicles properly on the road are matters that should be dealt with co-operatively between the police and the local authority, as they are in many other instances. That reinforces the work referred to in clause 1. 
I should clarify that there are no regulations for nuisance parking. It is up to local authorities to enforce the provision. It is designed to meet the experience of local authorities and others who made their representations to us when we consulted. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Repairing vehicles on a road

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister said in response to the debate on clause 3 that the power was discretionary. I assume he will confirm that that applies to the powers in this clause, too, and that consideration relates to why the Bill is necessary. It is taking a substantial amount of parliamentary time, there was a lengthy consultation process, and many councils that follow best practice are already implementing its provisions. Has the Department estimated how many are doing that? If the clause is to mean anything, the enforcement procedures are extremely important. Will the power be discretionary? Many concerns have been raised with us, especially by motoring organisations. How will a person be deemed to be carrying out the restricted works referred to in subsection (1)? What will be the test of evidence? Someone could be repairing a motor vehicle with a view to resale, which is completely different from a breakdown service repairing a vehicle.
My understanding is that the clause will prohibit businesses from repairing and servicing vehicles on the street. While it is possibly a well-intentioned measure, will the Minister confirm that great care will be taken to ensure that the clause targets illegal operations, allowing legitimate mobile mechanics and private individuals to undertake necessary car repairs? The measure proposes exemptions, but how will they be interpreted? Will the enforcement be straightforward and uncomplicated? 
Subsection (2) states: 
 ''For the purposes of this section 'restricted works' means— 
(a) works for the repair, maintenance, servicing, improvement or dismantling of a motor vehicle''.
The word ''improvement'' could indicate that a car was being improved not just to make it serviceable and roadworthy after an accident but for an eventual sale, so it could be deemed to fall foul of the clause. In many parts of the country, especially in rural areas, vehicles are stolen to order and in some cases dismantled for spare parts. How will the terms ''improvement'' or ''dismantling'' of a vehicle be applied? 
Subsection (3) states: 
 ''A person is not to be convicted of an offence under this section in relation to any works if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the works were not carried out . . . for gain or reward.'' 
Would it not be better to try to resolve such cases, and, as far as possible, keep them out of court? 
There is an interesting term in subsection (4) that I have seen mentioned in other Government legislation. It is the reference to the 
''annoyance to persons in the vicinity.'' 
Does ''in the vicinity'' mean those passing by? Does it mean those who live in the properties adjacent to the works or in front of which the vehicles might be parked? Could it be landowners? I appreciate that we are talking about nuisance vehicles and not about abandoned vehicles. However, the phrase ''in the vicinity'' is loose and could give rise to a number of problems, both in bringing a prosecution for an offence under clause 4 and in this part of the Bill. The courts could waste much time trying to elucidate the meaning of the phrase ''in the vicinity''. 
For the sake of clarification, for our own information and, especially, for the sake of the motoring organisations and breakdown associations, how will subsection (5) be interpreted? Will the Minister publish further explanatory regulations on that subsection? 
Under subsection (7), 
'''road' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984''. 
The Library note helpfully tells us that, in section 142 of the Act, a road is defined as 
''any length of highway or any other road to which the public has access''. 
I understand that the main feature of a road is that the general public has a right to use it as a means of getting from A to B. That definition covers all highways, including unadopted roads, access roads through estates that are owned by organisations such as housing organisations or residents who live there, carriageways and footpaths. A car park would not normally fall in the definition of a road, as its function is to enable people to leave their vehicles. 
Obviously the Minister is satisfied with that definition. Has he received representations from outside organisations—third parties—that it is a sufficiently lucid explanation? Although I am non-practising, I started my professional career as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. We were called on to do some distressing road accident cases. It will not be such cases that follow from the provision, but it is extremely important to get the definition right.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to some of those questions. If I were to respond to all of them, we might be here all night, but some of the points can be covered very specifically. For example, the legislation affecting London has had similar requirements in place for a number of years. There has been a considerable amount of experience, both of the legislation being in place and its enforcement and therefore plenty of opportunity for representations from motoring organisations and others. My understanding is that there has been general support for these provisions. Indeed, there has been strong support for them from my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I believe that a similar view is shared by Liberal Democrat Members.
The experience in London having been positive and the consultation having been extremely extensive, I hope that we will have complete support for the provision when we finish this short debate. The hon. Lady says that it would be better not to go to court on the issues in subsection 4(3). I agree. If the individual is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local authority that they are not running a business, the local authority will not pursue the case. However, at the end of the day, if there is a dispute in which the local authority believes that it has evidence that someone is running a business and that is denied, it would be for the court to take a decision. The onus will be to demonstrate that a business is not being run. 
Cars being repaired on the road can take up valuable car parking spaces. That in itself can be a nuisance for local people. They look unsightly and pollute the local environment. Clause 4 makes it an offence to carry out restricted works to vehicles on a road as part of a business or otherwise for reward or gain or in a way that gives reasonable cause for annoyance to people nearby. It is all about improving the quality of life in the neighbourhood. To some degree, the hon. Lady answered some of her earlier questions in a later contribution. There is clearly an exemption for repairs resulting from a breakdown or accident, provided that they are carried out within 72 hours or such time as the local authority authorises. 
The term ''road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all roads to which the public have access. In many cases, it will include private roads running through estates, the very places where there is  often a considerable amount of nuisance. I therefore hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill with the full support of the Committee. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Liability of directors etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a small point to make. The clause is self-explanatory. Would it be possible for the corporate body to wriggle free of the offence that is being prosecuted because the director, manager or secretary—I presume it is the financial secretary, rather than a humble, little office secretary—is deemed to be the officer responsible within the body so no charges will be pressed against the corporate body itself? How will that work in practice? Would action be taken only against the individual who can be identified or against the corporate body? Where the affairs of a corporate body are managed by its members, would only one member be prosecuted or would they be deemed to be jointly and severally liable to prosecution?

Alun Michael: The clause is intended to ensure that it is not possible for a prosecution to be avoided simply by individuals hiding behind the company or the company blaming individuals. The company could be prosecuted and the clause makes it clear that individuals could be prosecuted and therefore the provisions are comprehensive in terms of the liability. The point about the body corporate managed by its members is simply to ensure that it is not possible for a number of people to say, ''Not me, guv?'' and that it is possible for the body to be held to account so that the members—in this case—can be dealt with in the same way as the directors of a company. In general, that means that it would be a straightforward prosecution of the company, but it would be clear to the company, as well as to those seeking to take things forward, that people could not hide behind that. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Power to give fixed penalty notices

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 6, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
 '( ) The local authority shall provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly and request immediate assistance at any time during the issue or attempted issue of a fixed penalty notice.'.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in clause 19, page 15, line 20, at end insert—
 '( ) After subsection (1) insert— 
''( ) The litter authority shall provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly and request immediate assistance at any time during the issue or attempted issue of a fixed penalty notice.''.'. 
No. 26, in clause 23, page 23, line 21, at end insert— 
 '( ) The principal litter authority shalll provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly and request immediate assistance at any time during the seizure or attempted seizure of material under sub-paragraph (1) above.'.

Anne McIntosh: I would like to discuss the narrow points raised by the amendments, before having a more general discussion on the clause stand part.
I think that I am right in saying—I will stand corrected if the Minister contradicts me—that most of the fixed penalty notices would be imposed either by the police or by local authorities. Will he confirm that? We believe that that is not clear in the original drafting. We want to see that the police will still maintain a residual authority. There is general concern about how the fixed penalty notices will apply. We believe that the amendment, which is meant in the most constructive way possible, could assist the Government in ensuring that fixed penalty notices will be applied by all relevant officers—either of the local authority or of the local police force. 
Amendment No. 25 refers to clause 19, so I presume that I can address it now, but not formally move it until we reach clause 19.

David Taylor: Order. We can debate the amendment concerned. It does not have to be moved at this stage.

Anne McIntosh: On the issue of fixed penalty notices, we are reiterating the point that we raised in relation to earlier provisions: we believe that we are getting too far away from the good co-operation that we have seen between police forces and local authorities, whether in regard to nuisance car parking or, as in clause 19, the authority responsible for litter. That is why we want to state specifically—I hope that the Minister will agree to this—that the authorised officer will be given the means or equipment to
''contact the police directly and request immediate assistance''. 
Some altercations and extremely unpleasant situations could arise. We understand that, in other parts of the Bill, officers such as environmental health officers or local government officers will not have the power of arrest. If that is the case, the provisions in this area of the Bill will be prevented from taking effect. If an officer cannot apprehend a culprit who is being particularly belligerent or aggressive, we believe that it is important that the police work jointly with the relevant local authority. 
Amendment No. 26 would amend clause 23, which deals with controls on free distribution of printed matter. I apologise for the typo in the amendment. The  word ''shall'' normally has only two l's—or perhaps I see three because my glasses are playing up. Again, we want the police and the local authority—in this case, the litter authority—to act together. 
Perhaps it was not his intention, but it seemed that the Minister studiously ignored my remarks on the scenario in Boston and other parts of the United States, where there is seamless co-operation on enforcement between the local authority and the police. That is a federal system in which local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of provisions that are similar to those we are discussing. The local authority officials work seamlessly and jointly with police officers. I humbly submit that the provisions that the Minister is introducing in this part and this clause will be for nought if there is not continued involvement with the local police force. With those introductory remarks, I await the Minister's response.

Matthew Green: We will not support the amendments. We are slightly baffled by them, as they all ask that the local authority
''provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly''. 
My understanding is that dialling 999 on a mobile phone has the effect of contacting the police directly. I am not aware that local authorities have other means of contacting the police directly in any other circumstances in which a fixed penalty is issued or in which any other form of enforcement—for example, an eviction notice—is carried out. Therefore, the amendments would result in unnecessary centralisation by the Conservatives, who would dictate to councils what they should do. They ought to leave it up to the good judgment of local authorities to decide whether they need to spend money on such devices.

Alun Michael: I have no doubt about the integrity of the hon. Member for Vale of York in tabling the amendments, so she will appreciate that I am teasing her when I say that I am not sure whether mobile phone companies and radio companies were included in the long list of interests that she declared earlier.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister is absolutely right to mention that. As a result of a recent BT division, I may now have some O2 shares, whatever good that does me. Perhaps the Minister would like to purchase them from me.

Alun Michael: I am not sure how to respond to that bid.
I do not think that we need to prescribe that local authorities must issue authorised officers with mobile phones or portable radios, or make arrangements centrally. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that the amendments would lead to excessive centralisation. Common sense suggests that an employer who is asking employees to undertake such duties ought to consider their training and ensure that they are aware of how to seek help if they need it. This is part of a general co-operative  approach at local level between the police and the local authority, above all others, but involving many other organisations as well. Indeed, that is what clause 1 is about. 
In later clauses, we provide legislation that will enable the partnership to do its work. Some actions will be taken by local authorities, some will be taken by the police and some will be taken by other organisations. The seamless co-operation between the local authority and the police that we want is not hindered by anything in clause 6. 
I was interested recently to see a co-operative exercise in Birmingham, where the police, the local authority, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and a variety of other agencies including the Revenue were examining vehicles and asking questions about what was wrong with them. It was interesting that the issues of overloading, safety and the use of red diesel and the possibility of criminal activity were all teased out through the teamwork of officers and officials from a variety of different central Government and local government organisations. 
Rather than amend the clause, we can leave it to local authorities' common sense to ensure that their officers are properly trained and equipped. We certainly encourage that as good practice, and when I say ''we'' I mean not just DEFRA but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, as well as the Local Government Association, which is very much engaged with us in discussing the appropriate ways of ensuring that best practice is provided and spread. Co-operation between local authorities and the police is normally good; it will be further encouraged by crime and disorder reduction partnerships. 
Ways of dealing with and preventing the activity that is addressed by the clauses from becoming a problem in the local area will be identified by the work of the partnership, and therefore supported by the police, although local authority officials will undertake the work. My understanding is that local authorities will cover matters such as conflict management when training authorised officers to issue fixed penalty notices. The amendments are unnecessary and rather patronising to local authorities, which will apply common sense in training their officers appropriately.

Anne McIntosh: You will notice, Mr. Taylor, that I did not refer to training of officers. I wish to consider that separately.
What the hon. Member for Ludlow said was extremely revealing and rather startling to hear from the Liberal Democrats—we have come to accept that sort of thing from Labour Members. I am very conscious of the fact that I represent an extremely rural area—probably the most extremely rural area of that represented by any hon. Member present. In my part of the world we have had great problems with mobile phone communications, to such an extent that the police radio network did not work. Both my pager and my mobile phone either have very poor reception or fail to receive a signal at all. That may be anecdotal evidence, but if one multiplies it, it can be said that  such problems arise in many instances. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, who claims to come from a rural area, does not understand those problems.

Alun Michael: I do not normally leap to the defence of Liberal Democrats, but the hon. Lady does not seem to know how rural Ludlow or West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire are. Rural areas are well represented in this Committee, and in my previous incarnation I was well aware of communications problems experienced by police and local authorities. The problem does not feature everywhere, so it is in the places where it does so that training should take account of the best way of communicating and ensure that officers are able to deal with any issues that arise in a way appropriate to their area.

David Taylor: Order. Interventions should not be short speeches.

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor—however interesting that intervention was.
The most alarming incident—I have never heard of this happening before—took place during the recent high winds that affected Cumbria, Northumberland, County Durham and North Yorkshire, when we lost the mobile network completely. If there is a very poor signal, it is normally still strong enough to make emergency calls, but in that instance there was no network whatever. I am sure that the Committee would join me in expressing satisfaction that that does not happen too often. I shall return to the question of training in the clause stand part debate. 
I am disappointed that the Minister thought that our helpful, probing and constructive amendments were disagreeable. He referred to the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but our concern is that the police are being excluded from them. In response to a question this morning from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who had in mind neighbourhood watches, the Minister would not list the organisations in the partnerships. The farm watches in rural North Yorkshire make a huge contribution to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, so I hope that he will look favourably on them. He also failed to say what the position would be with regard to young offenders and children, but we can take that up later. 
Those are our reasons for tabling the amendments, but I believe that there is scope for more work on the provisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the clause and on other measures in this part of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to turn to the broader points on the clause, on which the Minister touched a little prematurely.
The Minister will be aware that a great deal of opinion has been expressed, perhaps most eloquently and forcefully by the Law Society, on the further  expansion of the use of fixed penalty notices, as envisaged in the clause. I hope that, from his sedentary position, he is not indicating that he has a problem with lawyers from either branch of the profession. That would put him in bad odour not only with the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, but with many others, including the Lord Chancellor.

Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Lady that some of my best friends are lawyers.

Anne McIntosh: Not many of my friends say that. I hope that the Minister will take my comments in good part.
I am sure that the Law Society will have responded to the consultation process, although, regrettably, that is not shown in the summary of responses that is available on the web. The Law Society has reservations; in its view, it is essential that only properly trained officials issue notices. As a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, I have some sympathy with the Law Society, which says that 
''the Bill provides local authorities''— 
in England and Wales— 
''with the power to delegate to their employees the imposition of such notices.'' 
However, the Bill is silent on the level of employee that is to be responsible. The Law Society goes on to say: 
 ''As a result, they''— 
fixed penalty notices— 
''are likely to be issued by officials who are not fully aware of their legal significance.'' 
Therefore, the clause is one of the most contentious that we have considered so far. 
Recipients of a fixed penalty notice should, for example, be advised that failure to pay could result in an increase in the penalty, with its conversion into a court fine and liability to prosecution. I heard what the Minister said, and I am sure that he will wish to elaborate on the response that he gave to the previous group of amendments, but the fixed penalty notices are quite substantial. Again, perhaps he will confirm whether they are discretionary. 
The Government have already established the fact that a significant proportion of fixed penalty notices are not paid, resulting in court orders. The Law Society says that ''suspects''—I think that we call them the accused— 
''should be made aware of their entitlement to appeal against a Fixed Penalty Notice and there must be appropriate procedures for such appeals to be heard.'' 
Clause 6 and the rest of this part of the Bill are silent about what right of appeal there will be.

Alun Michael: Has the hon. Lady never had a parking ticket?

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Lady has never had a parking ticket in this country, but I confess that I got one when my husband took me on my first ever visit to the United States. It was a rather romantic interlude in West Palm Beach, in a rather nice part of Florida—

David Taylor: Order. This is fascinating, but will the hon. Lady please return to the stand part debate?

Anne McIntosh: The relevant point is that I innocently said to my husband—perhaps I should not confess this—that one perhaps did not need to pay the parking fine because the vehicle was hired and one would not be returning to Florida immediately. However, I was apprised of the fact that one would be unable to hire a car on any future visit to anywhere in the United States. That may commend itself to the Minister as a good enforcement measure. Having said all that, I shall probably now get a succession of parking fines, and I shall blame them entirely on this monstrous Government, although not the Minister personally.
Will the Minister respond to the serious point? How will those served with a fixed penalty notice be told that they can appeal? What are the appropriate procedures for that appeal? Why are they not set out in the Bill? What assurance can he give the Committee, the Law Society and all other interested parties, including future recipients of fixed penalty notices, on the consequences? What training, guidelines and regulations does he intend to put in place? 
The Law Society is also concerned about the consequences for social exclusion of extending the use of fixed penalty notices, and the Minister will recall that I raised the issue when summing up on Second Reading. Unfortunately, one unintended consequence may be that those who are least able to pay will be subject to the increasing use of fixed penalty notices. This is the view of the Law Society: 
 ''If the majority of Notices are issued against the more deprived members of society, their financial situation will only be made worse. The level of the Fixed Penalty Notice does not take into account the means of the recipient and could therefore have a disproportionate effect on someone reliant on benefits. The Government must weigh the risk of further social exclusion with its commitment to tackling the 'causes of crime'''— 
in this case, environmental crime. 
I commend the Law Society's parliamentary brief to the Minister, because it raises some serious points. 
Page 86 of the Department's full regulatory impact assessment says that the provisions on nuisance vehicles—not abandoned vehicles—are expected to raise receipts to local authorities. The sums are worked out as to receipts being raised at a 50 or a 75 per cent. payment rate. As the Law Society accurately points out, the problem with fixed penalty notices is that many are simply not paid. Whose responsibility will it be to ensure that the permanent address of those issued with a fixed penalty notice is taken to guarantee payment? 
Clause 6(1) states that 
''the officer may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction . . . by payment of a fixed penalty''. 
Is the Minister saying that the notice can be issued only by an officer of the local authority? The provision could give rise to conviction for failure to pay, so will there be a role for the police? In the United States, there has been seamless co-operation and residual responsibility has been left with the police as to payment of such fixed penalty notices. That  eventuality did not arise in our case, because we spent half a day presenting ourselves at the local police station in West Palm Beach, Florida, to ensure that the parking fine was paid. 
When a person is given notice in respect of an offence, no proceedings may be instigated before a period of 14 days has elapsed. That begs the question, what if the person issued a fixed penalty notice has fled the area? What precautions will the Minister take against that? If a severe offence had been committed, the police would normally engage in hot pursuit. Will the police be involved? How will they ascertain where the person has absconded to? 
Clause 6(3) states: 
 ''A notice . . . must give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence.'' 
Who will decide what is reasonable information?

Matthew Green: In general, I share some of the hon. Lady's concerns about fixed penalty notices, but clause 6 relates to offences committed under clauses 3 or 4—such notices will be issued mainly to companies. Presumably, if the company flees the scene, the problem will have been resolved because cars will no longer be parked on the road for sale. I am struggling to see where she is coming from.

Anne McIntosh: We stand to be corrected by the Minister.
The Library notes inform us, and subsection (8) is clear, that: 
 ''The fixed penalty payable to a local authority . . . is, subject to subsection (9), £100.'' 
Under subsection (9), that amount can be amended, so it will be helpful to know by how much it could change. Could it increase to as much as £1,000 or will there be a limit? Does the Minister believe that to be a substantial fine? If, as the hon. Member for Ludlow reminded us, those fined will be companies—though individuals within a company may be prosecuted—£100 is not a substantial figure, given that lucrative business could have taken place.

Matthew Green: The hon. Lady will be aware, as she was in the Room, that we discussed the level of fine, if it is not a fixed penalty notice, under amendments Nos. 29 and 30. The Minister assured us that the Government were considering increasing the amount from £1,000 to £2,500 where a prosecution is sought rather than a fixed penalty notice issued. We have already covered this.

Anne McIntosh: In my view, that should be in the Bill.

Matthew Green: It is.

Anne McIntosh: With the greatest respect, it is not. The Government have given an undertaking, but it has not been written into the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman has strengthened my argument that it is extremely important that people should be aware of what the offence is and, if those who commit it are to be liable to conviction, it is important for the local authority officer to be given the requisite training.  The Minister paid lip service to such training, but the clause does not explain what the training will be. He has not satisfied either me or the Law Society on the training and what level of official will implement the fixed penalty notices. 
It is generally assumed from the representations and the responses to consultation that there will be nothing like a 50 per cent. payment rate for fixed penalty notices. The Committee can at least agree about that. As a result, all the calculations for the impact of fixed penalty notices on page 86 of the regulatory impact assessment are redundant.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the moment or two of entertainment during those exchanges, but I was most let down when the hon. Lady informed us that she had paid the fine. By the minute, I was expecting a warrant for extradition to the United States to appear and her to be dragged off, in which case, I am tempted to say, our proceedings might be rather shorter.
I do not agree with the Law Society's analysis or its comments on such matters. I am tempted to think that there might be a wish to defend the amount of activity in our courts, although I am sure that the views expressed by the Law Society are genuinely held. However, of course there needs to be appropriate training for those issuing fixed penalty notices. It needs to be appropriate to the activities being undertaken and the locality of the work. There will be big differences throughout the country. 
I recall my many years as a magistrate. The time wasted on simple, straightforward offences when someone who had committed an offence could pay the fine and let everyone get on with their business, preferably with the offence not being repeated, was enormous. By that, I mean the time of the court, the magistrates, witnesses, police officers who would have been on the streets and local authority officers who would otherwise have been about their business. 
The fixed penalty notice is a positive step as it will save time, make life straightforward for people and encourage enforcement authorities to undertake simple procedure, rather than thinking that if they act in response to a particular incident they will have to spend a few days in court, incur costs and waste time.

Matthew Green: Does the Minister agree that there can be genuine concerns about fixed penalty notices, especially with regard to social exclusion? However, that is not likely to apply under the clause, which is about people running businesses either repairing or selling cars on the highway. In such circumstances, we are not considering catching a 15-year-old cycling on the pavement and other less appropriate uses of fixed penalty notices.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I shall not repeat. There is a serious argument about unpaid notices needing to be chased up if there develops a sense in which they mean that nothing happens, rather than prosecution and, therefore, the likelihood of a heavier penalty and more inconvenience, which would be detrimental.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked what level the penalty might rise to. That will be a matter for the House. Penalty notices will be fixed if a change is made by statutory instrument, and therefore the normal parliamentary scrutiny will apply. The purpose of the provision is to put in place the lesson that very often a fixed penalty notice can be a simple and effective means of conveying the point that certain activities are not acceptable. It is one way of ensuring that a clear, early signal is sent about that type of company activity, but I agree that, if necessary, prosecution should apply. We need to consider the level of penalty to ensure that it is sufficient to make it not profitable to break the law. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Power to require name and address

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: On reflection, I may have received a parking fine. I do not wish to paint myself whiter than white or disappoint the Minister.
It is nice that we have at least a modicum of agreement, and the Minister accepted that the failure to pay fixed penalty notices to date, without them being increased, concerns the Government. Enforcement is also of some concern to them. Subsection (1) provides an authorised officer of a local authority with the power to require the name and address of an offender if the officer proposes to give him a penalty notice. Subsection (2) makes it an offence to fail to provide the information asked for or to give inaccurate information. It would help to know what level 3 is on the standard scale. Will the scales for clauses 6 and 7 have to be determined by statutory instrument? When does he imagine introducing such an instrument for clause 7, or is he not minded to amend the scales at this time? 
For the power to be meaningful, the Minister must prove that it is not discretionary and enforcement will be put in place. Is he convinced that the provision is as strong as it should be, or does he think that it is unnecessarily weak? We would argue that it does not go as far as the Government intend to make clauses 6 and 7 true enforcement procedures; nor does it ensure that fixed penalty notices are not only issued, but paid. If effective, what impact does he think enforcement will have on the total number of receipts?

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady asked about the rate at which level 3 is set. It is £1,000. It is not my responsibility to set the levels, and the point of specific levels is to achieve proportionality between different offences, whether the lead Department for those offences is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, DEFRA, the Department for Transport or the Home Office. Proportionality is to be encouraged because it is good for the reputation of the public service and legislation in general.
It is surely right that an authorised officer has the power to demand the name and address of any person to whom they propose to issue a penalty notice. It is surely a basic requirement to ask people to respect the law and those authorised by the law to undertake its enforcement. I hope that the Committee will support the clause unanimously.

Matthew Green: I am sure that the Minister will agree that in relation to penalties issued under clause 3, that is unlikely to be an issue because the very fact that someone is trying to sell their car on the road means that there must be a way of identifying who is trying to sell it, or they would not have any success selling it.

Alun Michael: There are circumstances in which an individual would be associated with a number of vehicles—we are talking about more than one vehicle here. If someone is doing something in the street in relation to a vehicle, it could be important for them to be required to say who they are, for assembling information that may be necessary for either the follow-up to the fixed penalty notice, if it has been addressed appropriately, or any prosecution that might be required if the fixed penalty notice has not been paid. That seems to be common sense, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where we are trying to protect activities for a business, it is difficult to understand how there could be the slightest problem.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Use of fixed penalty receipts

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 8, page 8, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

David Taylor: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 10, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
No. 6, in clause 38, page 35, line 19, leave out subsection (4). 
No. 7, in clause 52, page 48, line 28, leave out subsection (3). 
No. 8, in clause 75, page 60, line 28, leave out subsection (4). 
No. 9, in clause 96, page 71, line 25, leave out subsection (4).

Matthew Green: These are probing amendments and they are not designed to remove the Secretary of State's power to allow councils to spend money on things that they might want to spend money on. I hope that the Minister will put it on the record that he does not envisage fixed penalty notices being used as a means of raising revenue for the council. The intention of such notices is to deal with problems where they exist, not for councils to develop an overzealous approach to areas and go out seeking a means of keeping council tax down by collecting large amounts of fines. I am seeking reassurance that he sees the notices as tackling the problem, not as a ''get rich quick'' approach for councils. If interpreted overzealously, some enforcement could become excessive.

Alun Michael: I am very pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I certainly do not see the notices as fundraising measures, but as making a contribution to local authorities' enforcement costs in problem areas. That is the whole point of us allowing the retention of fixed penalty sums. The idea that offenders' payments go into local authorities' coffers and help to offset enforcement costs is in local people's interests. It is very unlikely that costs would be completely covered or that it would end up as fundraising. I am certain that that is neither intended nor likely to occur.
For the record, I want to make it clear that I would resist the amendment, because it is important that local authorities and waste collection authorities can make decisions about the issues that affect them. We are not just discussing clause 4, but other clauses covered by amendments in the group. The Local Government Act 2003 already gives powers to allow local authorities that receive high scores in their comprehensive performance assessment to spend receipts on any functions. There has not been that sort of flexibility before. The clauses therefore build on the approach, which I wholeheartedly support, taken by the Deputy Prime Minister which encourages the development of high performance and high quality in local authorities and rewards high performance with freedom and flexibility. That is a positive agenda, and this fits with it. I hope that, on the basis of those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and enthusiastically support the clause.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am pleased with the assurances that he has given. They address some of the concerns that have been expressed to me about councils using those powers in ways over and above those intended or envisaged by the Government. On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I understand from the comments made on Second Reading that the commitment that the Government seek to introduce—the use of fixed  penalty receipts in a form of hypothecation—is relatively novel. Will the Minister share with us what similar instances have arisen in his Department? Moreover, without giving away any trade secrets, how did he manage to get the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that regard?
Clause 8(8) allows for regulations governing the spending of income from fixed penalties by English local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will be given a free rein in that spending? Will he seek, through statutory instruments, to set out specific instances in which the receipts cannot be used? Does he envisage that there will be disappointment, for the reasons that I gave earlier, that the receipts will not be as high as they were expected to be? 
I understand from page 32 of the regulatory impact assessment that 
''deliberate vehicle arson costs the UK £230m per year to clean up, remove and address and it can be assumed that the majority of these fires involve nuisance vehicles.'' 
If that is the case, can the Minister confirm that subsection (8) or, indeed, the whole of clause 8, will allow arson to such nuisance vehicles to be cleared up at public expense, where they have been left on public property? 
I understand that the whole of part 2 will increase the responsibilities of, and the costs for, local councils substantially. Although we can discuss that later when we reach the provisions on abandoned vehicles, will the Minister comment on that matter now?

Alun Michael: Clause 8 enables local authorities to use the receipts from fixed penalty notices, issued under clause 6, for the purposes of their function under sections of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, sections 99 to 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the functions relating to the nuisance parking offences under clauses 3 and 4. However, those are specific, and other functions can be added to the list by way of regulations. We have been in close contact with local authorities on those matters, and they welcome the fact that we are enabling them to use the receipts from fixed penalty notices constructively.
The hon. Lady referred to the cost, in many millions of pounds, of dealing with arson to vehicles. The cost is such that even if I had not given the assurance to the hon. Member for Ludlow immediately prior to the debate that the measure was not intended as a fundraising exercise, it is difficult to see it could be to the level that would exceed the costs that are borne by local authorities.

Matthew Green: Does the Minister share my concern in relation to the hon. Lady's interpretation of repairing vehicles and selling them and the possibility that arson may occur? I am not sure that many people who are trying to sell or repair their vehicle deliberately set it on fire.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Such a situation sometimes happens unintentionally when repairs to vehicles are being undertaken, especially at a lower level of  professionalism. As he quite rightly says, it is not normally intentional. The hon. Lady seems to want a right of reply on that point.

Anne McIntosh: It is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats are being so silly about this matter. Instances have been reported to me, which are always difficult to prove for the reason that the Minister has just stated—that a repair could be involved—whereby somebody who is obviously not going to get what they regard to be the going price for a particular vehicle sets fire to it. We all know that such things happen.

Alun Michael: The problem with things that are difficult to prove is that they are difficult to prove and it is difficult to get a handle on them. That is why it is important that we try—as we are doing with this legislation—to create an environment in which things are not happening on the street that could be a nuisance for the neighbourhood. We must recycle any income that comes from fixed penalties into the activities of the local authority, primarily to improve the local environment. However, as I indicated earlier, given the freedoms and flexibilities philosophy, it must also be recycled into the work of the local authority generally. Therefore, I hope that all hon. Members will support the clause.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Fixed Penalty notices: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to discuss something that is consequential on my earlier comments and to press the Minister. He will know that Conservative Members are always extremely reluctant to give carte blanche to secondary legislation without any parliamentary scrutiny. I make a request to, and seek a commitment from, the Minister in relation to subsections (3), (4) and (5). I presume that a negative resolution is envisaged in subsection (5). I want him to assure us that there will at least be some opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I ask that because I am not that familiar with negative and positive resolutions.
Will the Minister confirm that subsection (5) relates to a negative resolution? It states: 
 ''A statutory instrument containing an order or regulations made by the Secretary of State under this group of sections is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'' 
Does that mean that it will go through without any consideration by a Statutory Instrument Committee? Perhaps the Clerk might be able to assist on that point. It is quite important because we have had an excellent debate and there seem to be some fairly blank expressions in the Room in regard to this matter. 
We prize parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister said in response to a number of issues we raised that the purpose of the Bill, as it is primary legislation, is not to set out the level of detail that I am discussing. He will  accept that there are a number of interested parties—local authorities, the police, those who will be affected by the fixed penalty notices and others—who rightly and properly should be consulted. Will he give us some clarification?

Alun Michael: I am happy to give that clarification. The fact that a negative resolution is set out in the clause does not have the implication that the hon. Lady suggested, which was that there would not be parliamentary scrutiny. If there is a prayer against the order by the Opposition, or, as happens in some cases, by Government supporters, a Committee must be established to give scrutiny to the measure. I would suggest that this is the right and proportionate means of ensuring that there is that scrutiny. We take both the process of making regulation and its scrutiny very seriously—it is allowed for in an appropriate way in the clause. I hope that that provides the hon. Lady with the reassurance that she needs.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Offence of abandoning a vehicle: fixed penalty notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is equally, if not more, testing territory. It is our assertion that because this Government have signed up to successive EU directives—for example, the end-of-life vehicles directive—the problem of abandoned vehicles has increased.

Alun Michael: I just want to get the underlying philosophy clear at the start of the debate. Am I not right in saying that at an earlier stage the hon. Lady was urging on the Government the strict and stringent enforcement of EU regulations?

Anne McIntosh: When they are able to deliver. In 10 years as an elected Member of the European Parliament and five and a half years advising the Conservatives before that, I always endeavoured, where possible, to ensure that we did not sign up to anything. As the leader of my party says, we should not make promises we cannot keep.

Alun Michael: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to be even more historical and explain how most of the regulation that was signed up to came during the time in office of her former party leader, Lady Thatcher?

Anne McIntosh: Not with regard to end-of-life vehicles, which is what we are talking about.
Let me give the Committee an idea of the scale of the problem. According to a House of Commons Library  research paper, there were only 3,100 abandoned vehicles in the north-east of England in 2000-01. That number had more than doubled by 2002-03 to 6,900. In my region, Yorkshire and the Humber, the number of abandoned vehicles in 2000-01 was 7,900. By 2002-03, it had increased to nearly double: 15,700. The national figure is not quite so graphic. The figures for England are 223,600 abandoned vehicles in 2000-01, rising in 2002-03 to 309,300. 
I am sure that the Minister is aware—because it is in the regulatory impact assessment that forms part of the directive—that the relative costs and benefits of alternative implementation options for the directive have to be considered until 1 January 2007, when producers become responsible for a significant part of the costs. There are three options before the Government. On the principle that the last owner pays, the cost will be £6 million or £40 million, depending on whether the cost of collecting abandoned cars is taken into account. Under the option that the producer pays, there are various scenarios: individual contracting, £43 million; individual contracting collective scheme, £32 million; or a fund of £24 million. What is probably the Department's least favourite option—the Exchequer paying—will mean a tax on car sales of £26 million to £27 million, or a levy of £36 million, included in vehicle excise duty. 
On page 32 of the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill, we are told that the cost in England of investigating, removing and disposing of abandoned vehicles was £26 million in 2002-03. If we were able under the Bill to reduce those costs nationwide by 10 per cent., it would represent a cost saving to local authorities of £2.6 million. That would be a compelling reason for the Government and local authorities to abandon such a function. 
The Library note states that there are no national statistics on the number of abandoned cars, but when local authority reports are collated it suggests that about 300,000 cars are dumped every year, against the 1.8 million cars that are scrapped. As I say, it is clear from the figures in the impartial Library research paper that the position is getting worse. I would like to see Britain take its European responsibilities seriously. I work closely with Members of the European Parliament, but in this case we are seeing a blight on the countryside, particularly in rural areas. 
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment was helpful in an Adjournment debate last week, being at pains to assert that the Government were not seeking to discriminate between rural and urban areas in their proposals, particularly under clause 10. We shall monitor and pursue vigorously the operation of the Bill in that respect. 
We note that in the fixed penalty notices relating to businesses under clauses 3 and 6, the penalty payable to a local authority will be £100. However, under proposed new section 2A(8), the penalty payable to a local authority is deemed to be £200. It was asserted  that the reason for the fine being £100 rising to £200 was that businesses rather than individuals were involved. Will the Minister explain why the initial fixed penalty notice is higher for abandoned vehicles than for nuisance vehicles? 
I understand that a period of 14 days must elapse before proceedings may be instituted. That seems a reasonable time, but I would like to know how the Government decided on that time rather than on one or two months. 
Proposed new subsection 2A(3) states that a notice should 
''give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence.'' 
Could the Minister elucidate what level of information should be given in that fixed notice, and in whose view it will be deemed to be ''reasonable'' information? 
It is interesting to note that the penalty may be paid by pre-paying and sending the payment by post. Is the Minister taking it on good authority that it will not be a spot fine? We are assuming, under proposed new section 2A(5), that the penalty can be paid through the post, but what proof will there be at the time of the offence that payment has been made? Should there not be more evidence of such a payment? 
Proposed new section 2A(14) refers to the ''authorised officer'', who is described as 
''an employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purposes of giving notices under this section''. 
As the abandonment of a vehicle can regrettably have a criminal element to it, will the police have a residual responsibility in that regard, as a back-up? I imagine that that would not be required in most instances, but for the police to absolved of all responsibilities in that regard, should there not be a transfer of resources? 
Proposed new section 2A(14) says that 
'''chief finance officer', in relation to a local authority, means the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority.'' 
Is the chief finance officer responsible for confirming that payment under clause 10 has been made? 
Proposed new section 2C(8), entitled ''Use of fixed penalties under section 2A'', says: 
 ''The powers to make regulations conferred by this section are, for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 100 of the Local Government Act 2003, to be regarded as included among the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.'' 
Is the Minister saying, to all intents and purposes, that the primary legislation—that is, clause 10—does not set out all the procedures that must be followed when issuing a fixed penalty notice for the offence of abandoning vehicles? Will he say what he assumes the time scale to be for the Government issuing those regulations? Can he confirm that those regulations, like those we discussed previously, will be laid before Parliament? The matter is not expressly clear and the reference to guidance in clause 17 does not elucidate on it further.
Will the Minister confirm who the authorised officer is under proposed new section 2B, entitled ''Fixed penalty notices: power to require name and address''? Will he also confirm that the authorised officer will have sufficient seniority to explain to the persons subject to fixed penalty notices the consequences not only of those notices, but of not paying and thereby committing further offences?

Alun Michael: I think we have heard the nearest thing yet to an apology for the barmy amendment tabled on Second Reading by the hon. Lady's party. The issue certainly affects some rural areas as well as urban ones. I could not underline that point more strongly.
The hon. Lady asks why the penalty for abandoned vehicles is distinct from that for nuisance vehicles. To a degree, the difference arises from experience and from consultation with local authorities and others on the nature of the nuisance caused. Abandoned vehicles are serious, as they cause danger to the public as well as degradation of the environment. It is important that the often serious offences relating to abandoned vehicles should be dealt with proportionately.

Matthew Green: Does the Minister agree that having an abandoned vehicle removed by the local authority imposes far greater costs than issuing fixed penalty notices for vehicles parked on the road, which local authorities do not remove themselves, but which they want the business running them to remove? The cost on the public purse is much greater with abandoned vehicles.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. An abandoned vehicle can also be regarded a hazardous waste. If we consider the petrol tank of an abandoned vehicle in a residential area and what can be done with a couple of matches, the seriousness of the offence becomes clear indeed. I am sure that many of us have constituency experience of the extent to which repeated abandoning of vehicles can cause enormous distress. Unfortunately, an abandoned vehicle can also sometimes cause injury to children who attempt to play with it. A series of issues lead to the appropriateness of the penalty being clear.

Patrick Hall: On fixed penalty notices, I made the point on Second Reading that a defence from someone receiving a fixed penalty notice may well be that a vehicle was not deliberately abandoned. I understand that the courts have had some difficulty in accepting that it can be easily proved that a vehicle was deliberately abandoned. Will the Bill provide the remedy for this?

Alun Michael: I think that goes beyond what we can do in the Bill, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out my understanding of the position. The point he raises is serious but also difficult, as it comes down to quality of evidence, what the courts are willing to accept and where the line of reasonable  doubt can be drawn. I undertake to develop on that point more fully in writing.
There are a number of matters that we think should be left to the local authority, such as the level of the employee involved and the training offered to employees undertaking such work. Generally, the arrangements are for the local authority, which is the case with the question of the authorised officer. We have always said—this is not a matter of contention between us and local government generally—that the local authority ought to consider the appropriate level of staff, the experience of the staff and what training might be needed to meet the circumstances in which people will undertake those duties.

Anne McIntosh: One point is absolutely crucial here: where police have been responsible for applying fixed penalty notices to either abandoned or nuisance vehicles, they were in most circumstances uniformed police officers. I understand that a big change could be that the authorised officers under clause 10 may not be uniformed. This could mean that, inadvertently, a more junior officer, or even the wrong sort of officer, is involved. That could confuse the person who receives the fixed penalty notice.

Alun Michael: There are certainly many duties that have had to be done by trained uniformed police officers whose services are required elsewhere—for instance, at the back of this Room. Their training might be called on at any time, but they are undertaking fairly bureaucratic but important duties. Community support officers and the use of local authority officers in enforcement, support and wardening duties are part of trying to ensure that we not only increase the number of police officers available, as we have done, but make the largest possible proportion of the police force available for the most important duties.

Matthew Green: On abandoned vehicles, surely it is unlikely that the person will be with them. By definition they are abandoned, so a fixed penalty notice is likely to arrive in the post at the address of the person who is the registered keeper of the vehicle. It will make little difference to the person posting it whether they wear a uniform or not.

Alun Michael: It is becoming a habit to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a very sensible point.
I ought to make it clear that I responded specifically to the question from the hon. Member for Vale of York on what is done by police officers and what is not. Some things that were done by police officers are now not appropriate for them to do and are best done in other ways. I should make the point that in this clause there is no change. Local authorities enforce  abandoned vehicles legislation. Police do as well, but they do not have a duty to remove abandoned vehicles, because that lies with the local authority. I hope that clarification is helpful. 
The hon. Lady encouraged us to diligence and even enthusiasm on European directives, but the number of vehicles being abandoned had already increased significantly in the years before the introduction of the higher de-pollution and treatment standards required by the end-of-life vehicles directive. 
The Government have taken a number of initiatives to make it more difficult for vehicles to be dumped with impunity. I am sure that is encouraged and supported by most people. From 2007, car owners will be eligible for what is described as free take-back of their vehicles at accessible end-of-life vehicle treatment facilities. Regulations will be laid before the House in the coming weeks, so the situation will be made clear. Those arrangements will provide a further disincentive to abandon vehicles. 
Under the current proposals for the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, retailers will provide finance to local authorities to upgrade their sites separately to collect the WEEE directive material. Producers will then be responsible for the costs of onward transport, treatment and recycling of those items. There is, therefore, no reason that the WEEE directive should result in fly-tipping. The arrangements proposed in the clause are sensible and I hope they receive the Committee's full support. 
The penalty, set at £200, can be amended by order, but the flexibility for a local authority to accept a lesser amount—if the fine is paid before the specified date in the fixed penalty notice—is a common-sense provision that aims at encouraging people to pay and therefore increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the clause. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Notice of removal

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 11, page 12, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
 '(2) Leave out subsection (2) (Requirement to give notice to occupier).'. 
The Bill is not designed to see who is responsible for checking the ownership of the abandoned vehicle. Paragraph 52 of the Library note says: 
 ''Currently, under section 3(2) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, if a vehicle that appears to be abandoned is found on land that is occupied, a 15-day notice must be served on the occupier of that land before that vehicle can be removed.''
What test and weight of evidence will the Government require to conclude that the vehicle appears to be abandoned? The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to the registered owner, but which official will be responsible for checking who the registered owner of that vehicle is? What constitutes an abandoned vehicle? 
The note continues: 
 ''If the vehicle is on a private driveway, there is no practical problem.'' 
However, we in rural areas find that such vehicles are abandoned on land. I have not mentioned the WEEE directive, which we shall consider later, but as the Minister touched on it he will be aware that there is now a fridge mountain, most of which is finding its way on to farmland. That same problem—

David Taylor: Order. May I bring the hon. Lady back to the amendment?

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
The problem is the definition of a road. Section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 specifies that roads could include those passing through housing estates managed by registered social landlords and other social authority housing estates. The purpose of this probing amendment is to ask the Minister whether he has considered the implications for housing estates in urban areas. 
For my hon. Friends, who, like me, have predominantly rural constituencies outside London and other urban conurbations, the concern is not about vehicles dumped on private driveways, but about vehicles dumped on farm land. Who is responsible for determining whether the notice of removal goes to the registered keeper or owner? Is the Minister seeking to impose a blanket notice of removal on the landowner? That would be grossly unfair to the person who owns the land on which an abandoned vehicle is dumped, without his knowledge and through no fault of his own. That scenario may not have been the first that came to mind when the Bill was drafted.

Alun Michael: I am a little puzzled because most of the time it seemed that the hon. Lady was speaking against her amendment, which would enable a local authority to remove immediately from private land any vehicle it considers has been abandoned. That would not require the agreement or consent of the landowner. I am convinced that that goes too far. It would amount to a major interference with private property and would almost certainly be contrary to the European convention on human rights. Consultation on reducing the 15-day notice period in 2001 showed that it was strongly opposed by classic car organisations, among others.
I shall clarify the position. We want action to be taken quickly when cars are abandoned, but we do not  want to cause unintended damage to individuals as a consequence. Classic car organisations, including the British Historical Vehicle Club Federation, which represents the views of 350 organisations, which between them have 250,000 members, stated that it was concerned that one man's treasure could be deemed detrimental by a local authority. Someone could return from holiday to find that their car, which they had left on their private driveway, had been removed. A reduction, let alone the removal, of a notice period would leave the Department open to legal challenge on the grounds of proportionality, and the proposal was therefore dropped. 
Some of the hon. Lady's other remarks were more about the clause than the amendment. It might therefore be more appropriate to respond to them in the clause stand part debate.

Matthew Green: It might help if the Minister could confirm my understanding of the situation, which is that when someone allows old cars to pile up in their fields, local authorities already have the power to take enforcement action and to move those vehicles off private land. I believe that the powers have been used in my constituency.

Alun Michael: Indeed. There are powers for the local authority to use, with the approval of the owner or occupier of the land. I am setting out why we cannot accept the amendment. The hon. Gentleman, in explaining some of the context, is right.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. If it is more appropriate, I can raise some of the issues in our clause stand part debate. He referred to the fact that these vehicles would be unceremoniously carted off. The specific point is what the situation would be on private land when the occupier had no knowledge that the vehicle was there. Also, there is the particular situation of a road going through a housing estate.

Alun Michael: Presumably the hon. Lady is referring to housing association roads and that sort of thing. Those are highways, so the legislation applies to them. As I said, I am resisting the temptation to stray outside what the amendment says and respond to all the points.

Anne McIntosh: Against that background, it was a useful debate. It was a probing amendment, and I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alun Michael: Perhaps I could assist the Committee more generally on clause 11.
According to existing legislation, a local authority cannot remove an abandoned vehicle from land that is occupied before the expiration of a 15-day notice  served on the occupier of that land. This causes problems, especially when the vehicle is on a road that passed through a privately owned estate, because there is confusion about who the occupier is. The local authority will therefore usually affix a notice to the vehicle to alert the owner. The notice attracts instances of antisocial behaviour, such as arson and vandalism. Similarly, a local authority must affix a 24-hour notice to a vehicle prior to removal, when it considers it to be in such a condition that it should be destroyed. That notice, again, can attract instances of antisocial behaviour such as arson and vandalism. Clause 11 therefore amends the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, by disapplying the requirement to serve a notice on an occupier where the vehicle is on a road and removing the requirement to serve a 24-hour notice when the vehicle is in such a condition that it is considered fit only for destruction. 
Let me explain again that ''road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all roads to which the public have access, and will, in many cases, include private roads running through estates. I hope that that explanation makes it clear why the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with great interest. I wonder if he could respond—I may have missed this—to the question of who is going to be responsible for checking the ownership and what actually constitutes an abandoned vehicle.
Furthermore, section (3) of the 1978 Act requires a local authority to affix a notice to a vehicle 24 hours prior to removal if it is considered to be in such a condition that it should be destroyed. There is no definition of what that means. I wonder if the Minister could help the Committee with that? [Interruption.]

David Taylor: Order. Will hon. Members desist from continuous conversation?

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Surely the Minister did not intend not to have that definition, because that could make a nonsense of the clause. Will he therefore share the definition with us? I understand it could include vehicles that have some parts missing or which have been burnt out. What is the significance of the 24-hour notice?

Patrick Hall: I wish to make a very brief contribution, which I think would have been ruled excessively long if it had been delivered as an intervention on the Minister.
On Second Reading, I asked about the definition of any road over which the public has access. I said that if car parks on housing estates owned by housing associations are not included in the provision to permit immediate removal, the Bill's scope may be disappointingly limited.
I note that paragraph 34 of the explanatory notes says that clause 3, which deals with selling vehicles in the street, specifically excludes car parks. When my right hon. Friend intervened on me on Second Reading, he recognised the importance of the need for total clarity and indicated his willingness to assist at a later stage. When will we be fully apprised on that?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend asked whether subsection (2) will permit abandoned cars to be removed immediately from roads, car parks and other public areas on housing estates owned by housing associations and similar bodies. I have referred on a number of occasions to the definition that ensures that not only public highways, but other roads are subject to the requirements in the Bill, and I am happy to emphasise that.
I have considered the issue further in the light of my hon. Friend's concern. It is clear that any road, whether adopted or unadopted—that is another good point that he raised—is covered. Car parks that are distinct from roads and other public areas are not. A parking area that is clearly part of the highway is covered, but a separate and discrete car park might not be. That does not affect a local authority's duty to remove abandoned cars. It applies to all land, public and private. 
The only circumstances in which a local authority does not have to exercise that duty is if the cost of removing the car to the nearest carriageway is disproportionately high, and that is not likely to arise in relation to land on a housing estate. It does mean that a local authority will need to obtain the consent of the occupier of the land—for example, the relevant housing association—before removing an abandoned vehicle from land that is not a road, because the provision applies to land that is a road. That may be done by placing a notice on the car. If the landowner or occupier does not object within 15 days, the vehicle may be removed. We discussed that situation earlier in relation to roads. There is no need to wait 15 days. As soon as the occupier's consent is obtained, the vehicle can be removed. Housing associations should, therefore, be able to arrange with local authorities to have abandoned cars removed rapidly. 
My hon. Friend raised some points that probably apply more to practice than to the legislation, and I propose to consider them further with ministerial colleagues in other Departments to see whether anything more needs to be done in legislation or whether there are other ways, perhaps in guidance or as part of the expectations that are placed on housing associations and local authorities, in which we can ensure that everyone knows how the problem can and should be tackled. My hon. Friend made it clear that he wants something practical done when the circumstances require that. I certainly appreciate the wish to simplify the process as much as possible for housing estates on which abandoned cars are a real problem, so I will re-examine the provision to see if anything more is needed to ensure that they are  removed immediately from public areas on housing estates. 
A point worth making is that there is no specific definition of an ''abandoned vehicle'' or one that is ''fit for destruction''. Those terms were used in the 1978 Act, so they have been around for some time. Local authorities are used to using them and there is guidance from ENCAMS and the Local Government Association on the sort of criteria that should be used by local authorities when making a decision. In the spirit of ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'', it seems to me that good practice is the right approach. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock till Thursday 20 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.